Originally posted by Freeborn
Maybe, I doubt it though, but I am certainly prepared to consider the possibility if you would care to provide some evidence to suggest that this is
just more than religious dogma and rhetoric.

Ah-ha! An open mind. Very rare these days...

Science vs. Religion is a very sticky thing. When someone wants science I can give them science. I've studied up on it, so sure I can give you
whatever proof the scientific community has to offer in the favor of science.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by the_watcher]

what pray tell me does science have to say about the fact that when humans begin life as an embryo the embryo is reptilian.. and why do we humans
carry a reptillian gene.. did we pick this up from walking with the dinos..

Originally posted by xion329alpha
I personally believe humans are a cross between pigs and chimps.

Hmmm, that explains the politicians? But what about the rest of the population?

Now, at the risk of sounding rude, the only working scientific theory attempting to explain our existence and how we arrived here is the Darwin theory
of evolution. Is the OP trying to offer an alternative to Darwin or trying to debunk it?

I am open to any well thought out and reasoned opinion.
There maybe an element of truth in both arguements, or none.
I'm not sure, I just wish people would concentrate on the issue and be prepared to consider alternative viewpoints.

I honestly prefer the scientific approach and explanation, but I do not discount some sort of Divine Intervention at some point or points.

The scientific approach is reasoned and the available evidence suggests that evolution of some sort has taken place, and continues to do so.
That there are gaps in the theory and that there is some conflicting evidence is undeniable.
But it is our best theory at present, if we disregard unproven religious dogma.

But it does not answer the ultimate questions;
How did the universe start?
What provided the spark for cognisant life?
What is the purpose of life?
etc.

I cetainly haven't got the answers to these questions but I at least attempt to approach them with an open mind and discount nothing.

Yes, we didn't come from APES! We came from a common ancestor of apes over 300,000 years ago. Just because you are a few genes different from someone
living in Africa doesn't mean you aren't from the same species.

I myself think we have other origins other than just apes, maybe
some kind of genetic hybrid with the help from our alien friends,
I don't see how we made the jump from monkey brain to human brain
where is the missing link? or if we are from the stock of ape why
have they not caught up yet? And about those monkey feet ?? (joke)
but they are funny hand feet.

I don't believe in evolution. I haven't seen any proof. I think homo sapiens sapiens have always been in our current form. The whole idea of long
term or even short term mutations is just as "crazy" an idea as believing in the galactic federation of light.

I would more readily believe that the multiverse is comprised of self-organizing quantum bits that give rise to every "thing", including humans and
consciousness, that is extant within the observable phenomenological universe that we inhabit.

As the laws of physics dictate the Universe, Lloyds contention is that by understanding the laws of physics that we can understand the Universe
itself. The Universe in his interpretation is a quantum computer that computes following the laws of physics to transform the bits that are defined by
the atoms in terms of their properties (for example, quantum spin and alignment) as it is these bits that eventually give rise to 'its' like an
object made of atoms. The Universe is thus in other words processing information; by understanding this process would give a better understanding of
why the Universe is complex. One of the book's main ideas is that information and energy are equivalent, reading the book would give the reader a
better idea of how and why this is so. The book seems to contain a philosophy of what many physicists believe the Universe to be, it underlies many of
the ideas like when the existence of the 'ghost in the machine' is questioned, or when intelligent design is brushed aside as misguided.

I'm finding more than a little irony here. You're stating creationism as fact instead of saying you don't know, because you dont. And yet you find
open mindedness a virtue it seems.

Well, not exactly. I'm open to a lot of things, and that is why I'm here on this forum. I believe in a lot of things your average person would scoff
at, and one of those things is God.

So I must defend my beliefs as fact because I believe they are. Just as a scientist must defend what he/she beleives as fact because they believe they
are.

I am very open to a lot things, but I must draw the line at my faith. My faith is the one true faith, and I will not be swayed on that one subject.
Having said that... there is much left to be argued in such a way that I can be swayed. For example, I believe in extra terrestrials... but if you
present proof against their existence I will believe it. I don't know if science has officially proven they can't exist... I know many scientist
don't believe, and have reasons... but as far I as I know no one has definitively proved their existence either way.

what pray tell me does science have to say about the fact that when humans begin life as an embryo the embryo is reptilian.. and why do we humans
carry a reptillian gene.. did we pick this up from walking with the dinos..

I'll tell you the honest truth here.

I have not run across this in any official scientific journal. It seems vaguely familiar to some hoax about how human babies seem to look like various
animals, at various stages of development, within the mother's womb, but, as stated earlier, it was a proven hoax.

I will do some research and see what I can find. Now that you bring it up I'm actually quite curious about this.

I have not run across this in any official scientific journal. It seems vaguely familiar to some hoax about how human babies seem to look like various
animals, at various stages of development, within the mother's womb, but, as stated earlier, it was a proven hoax.

I have not run across this in any official scientific journal. It seems vaguely familiar to some hoax about how human babies seem to look like various
animals, at various stages of development, within the mother's womb, but, as stated earlier, it was a proven hoax.

Ah. Quite true... well at the very least I can agree with Wikipedia when it says "it was quite clearly wrong in supposing that embryos passed through
the adult stages of more primitive life-forms."

Perhaps not a hoax, but also not proven true either.

Edit: Oh! And far as the babies still in developmet that resemble Reptillians, I cannot find anything from the any of the accepted academic resources.
Maybe if you have a link? Or... some way to direct me to some official source of information I can maybe better understand the phenomenon.

Originally posted by KaginD
I was just doing some research on human DNA for my Genetics class and I came across something that blew me away. I'm not sure if this is common
knowledge to you guys or not, but I figured I'd share what I found. As we all know, humans normally have 23 pairs of chromosomes. I read that apes
such as gorillas, chimps, and orangutans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Given this info, how did a human evolve from an ape if we have one less then
they do???

Okay, here's where I'm boggling. You have the question -- so why didn't you look up hominid evolution? There are literally thousands of sites on
this, as well as a whopping stack of books in your university library that go into this in rather great detail.

The "current knowledge" site for hominid (in Understandable English) is www.talkorigins.org... and includes links and references. It goes back
beyond Paranthropus (and no (sigh), humans aren't descended from apes.)

I am doing a thesis on this and if I am wrong, I would like to know now lol.

Boggle #2... why didn't you go ask any of the dozen or so professors and research assistants at your educational facility to point you to some good
reference books on hominid evolution? And on the mechanics of evolution and mutation (PubMed has interesting stuff on it.)

And are we talking thesis as in "Masters' Thesis"??? If so, which department are you in? There's info available in paleontology that many
biologists aren't aware of and info in anthropology (which often goes into greater depth on hominids) and archaeology.

I hope I don't sound too snarky, but I've done two Masters' Theses and am currently working on my PhD Dissertation. I realize this is not
intuitive to everyone and I'll be willing to answer any questions you have on this.

The first rule of good science (if they haven't pounded it into your head yet) is "go read the latest books on the subject." My reading list for
my last Masters' was 50 books long (you skim them, and decide which ones are going to make the cut... only 5 made it) plus another 200 papers skimmed
(15 made the cut to be read in full.)

The reading list for the PhD is somewhat longer.

If you're not familar with it, searches on scholar.google.com... will bring you up most of the latest papers -- many of which will be accessible
through your library account (Elserver, etc.)

And do hit your library up with that question, because the librarians can print you out a staggering list of references, including books only
available in interlibrary loan.

Interesting that you said "adapted". Adaptation is one of the precepts of evolution, which meshes well with natural selection. Adaptation
demonstrates a gradual change to a species' environment, selecting those with traits more conducive to survival within the subsystem, and, over great
amounts of time, culling those with traits less conducive to survival.

Now myself, I see no conflict between the science of evolution and the dogma of religion. To me, they are different words, different language that
describe similar phenomenon. I think some choose to drive a wedge between the two, and in the process, denigrate both.

No, I am NOT a creationist. I am a Christian. Science is a beautiful language.

Originally posted by KaginD
I am doing a thesis on this and if I am wrong, I would like to know now lol.

If we didn't evolve from apes, then where DID we come from?? The whole aliens made people theory is starting to look like a good theory to me.

Well, I think you need ask yourself what has higher priority in your life and your understandings. Would you rather have a thesis paper that is well
recieved, or would you rather write about the truth? The truth comes at you in strange ways. Most of the "truth" has changed into mythology and has
been lost over the hundreds of thousands of years of mankind's true HIStory. However the truth has a way of coming back around, though less
acceptable, it still is.

In evolution, we didn't evolve from the apes, rather the apes and mankind were two branchings from the same shoot. This is why it's assumed we
evolved from the apes. However, YES, there was "alien" DNA injected into "mankind" more then once.

If you want to know more about the truth of the evolution I've provided links below.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.